Car Accident

Retrogamer

jack_tyler said:

Retrogamer said:

jack_tyler said:

Hello.

Approx 3 wks ago my son was involved in a car accident, at the moment liability is still being estabilished but unfortunately my sons car is a total loss. As such he was offered a valuation amount for his car, minus his excess, but the amount is much too low.  So he has asked them to reconsider and sent in all the paperwork like full service history etc, receipts for work done on the car, receipts showing genuine parts used etc etc along with photos of the car prior to the accident and adverts showing what it would cost to replace his car like for like. Today his insurance contacted him regarding the valuation, and have said that it has gone to the underwriters to make a decision as the car has modifications on that they were not aware of. My son had no idea what these modifications were, as he only got the car in February and was told when he bought it, that it was standard. The car is a Skoda Fabia VRS, he knows that they are more sporty than a normal Fabia, but he has no idea what these so called modifications are. His insurance have said that someone will be in touch with him to discuss things very soon.

However my son is now really worried about what is going to happen. He has tried to contact the previous owner of the car to ask them what they had done to the car, but he cant get hold of them.  Ive tried to reassure him and told him not to worry as there is nothing really he can do, but at the same time ive told him to prepare for the worst case scenario, which would be they cancel his insurance because of these modifications. If this happens, I know that my son will not got anything from his insurers for his car, but what about the third party? Will he be liable for their costs, if liability goes against him?  Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you

Is it a 1.9 Diesel Fabia VRS?

If so if you are able to share any pictures of the cars engine / exterior etc i will be able to spot any modifications and state them for you (blur the registration)

It is a Fabia VRS as the vin number etc confirms this.

That engine bay in that photo is 100% standard from what i can see there.
There is no induction kit for sure there.

Would it be possible to take pictures of the front suspension from where the wheel is, and also of the rear exhaust? If possible one of the tailpipes coming out the rear and also one of the exhaust from underneath if possible.

This is the same as my one but mines has lots of modifications but i've had it for 6 years and i can spot standard / modified parts a mile off now. 

The Fabia VRS has a cold air feed tube that comes from the airbox to the slam panel so it forces air into the air filter box. I wonder if the engineer got confused and suspect's that's a modification?

Grumpy_chap

Are these modifications, if any, actually material to the case in hand?

As far as I can tell, there are two ways the modifications really have an impact:

1. Standard car worth, say £5k.  Insured for £5k.  Car with modifications worth £5.5k.  Underinsured by 10%.  Payout value reduced by 10%
2. Modifications contributed to the accident and would not have occurred if the car was unmodified.  Such a scenario is likely very rare.

Retrogamer

Grumpy_chap said:

Are these modifications, if any, actually material to the case in hand?

As far as I can tell, there are two ways the modifications really have an impact:

1. Standard car worth, say £5k.  Insured for £5k.  Car with modifications worth £5.5k.  Underinsured by 10%.  Payout value reduced by 10%
2. Modifications contributed to the accident and would not have occurred if the car was unmodified.  Such a scenario is likely very rare.

There's another scenario as well.
If the insurance company would have refused to insure a car, due to modifications that were not disclosed then they will pay the costs to any third parties involved then pursue the policy holder for the costs.

m0bov

ontheroad1970 said:

jack_tyler said:

Evie44 said:

Insurers need to know if ceramic coated as its classed as a modification, as is having windows tinted if its not factory standard.

This is not correct. A modification to a car is anything that is different from manufacturers standard specification, i.e. changing suspension, or engine upgrades, wheels etc. Protecting the paintwork by putting a ceramic coating on it, which is a bit like non stick in a frying pan, is not a modification as its not changing the car.

It is, however something that you would expect to be put right in a repairable shunt, so therefore it should be declared.

Its a wear and tear item so it would be classed as cosumable,

Sandtree

Retrogamer said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Are these modifications, if any, actually material to the case in hand?

As far as I can tell, there are two ways the modifications really have an impact:

1. Standard car worth, say £5k.  Insured for £5k.  Car with modifications worth £5.5k.  Underinsured by 10%.  Payout value reduced by 10%
2. Modifications contributed to the accident and would not have occurred if the car was unmodified.  Such a scenario is likely very rare.

There's another scenario as well.
If the insurance company would have refused to insure a car, due to modifications that were not disclosed then they will pay the costs to any third parties involved then pursue the policy holder for the costs.

Since the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 the insurer no longer has to show that the non-disclosure or false representation was material or relevant to the incident. If they can demonstrate the non-disclosure was intentional or reckless then they can void the policy even if the non-disclosure was irrelevant to the incident or immaterial in premium adjustment. 

The OP states that decorations were added by their son so no hope of claiming that it was inadvertent  and so it would come down to if 1) it is reckless not to realise adding stickers, sign writing, badges etc counts as a modification or 2) if it was reckless not to realise there were modifications to the car when they bought it.

Whilst you may argue that stickers etc are harmless, and that could be true if its just a cartoon character or such, others stick "Turbo" stickers on the back etc which can change the risk profile if a potential thief could mistake it for a higher value vehicle. 

Retrogamer

Sandtree said:

Retrogamer said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Are these modifications, if any, actually material to the case in hand?

As far as I can tell, there are two ways the modifications really have an impact:

1. Standard car worth, say £5k.  Insured for £5k.  Car with modifications worth £5.5k.  Underinsured by 10%.  Payout value reduced by 10%
2. Modifications contributed to the accident and would not have occurred if the car was unmodified.  Such a scenario is likely very rare.

There's another scenario as well.
If the insurance company would have refused to insure a car, due to modifications that were not disclosed then they will pay the costs to any third parties involved then pursue the policy holder for the costs.

Since the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 the insurer no longer has to show that the non-disclosure or false representation was material or relevant to the incident. If they can demonstrate the non-disclosure was intentional or reckless then they can void the policy even if the non-disclosure was irrelevant to the incident or immaterial in premium adjustment. 

The OP states that decorations were added by their son so no hope of claiming that it was inadvertent  and so it would come down to if 1) it is reckless not to realise adding stickers, sign writing, badges etc counts as a modification or 2) if it was reckless not to realise there were modifications to the car when they bought it.

Whilst you may argue that stickers etc are harmless, and that could be true if its just a cartoon character or such, others stick "Turbo" stickers on the back etc which can change the risk profile if a potential thief could mistake it for a higher value vehicle. 

I think you've quoted the wrong person here.
You're responding against things i never said or implied. 

Sandtree

Retrogamer said:

Sandtree said:

Retrogamer said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Are these modifications, if any, actually material to the case in hand?

As far as I can tell, there are two ways the modifications really have an impact:

1. Standard car worth, say £5k.  Insured for £5k.  Car with modifications worth £5.5k.  Underinsured by 10%.  Payout value reduced by 10%
2. Modifications contributed to the accident and would not have occurred if the car was unmodified.  Such a scenario is likely very rare.

There's another scenario as well.
If the insurance company would have refused to insure a car, due to modifications that were not disclosed then they will pay the costs to any third parties involved then pursue the policy holder for the costs.

Since the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 the insurer no longer has to show that the non-disclosure or false representation was material or relevant to the incident. If they can demonstrate the non-disclosure was intentional or reckless then they can void the policy even if the non-disclosure was irrelevant to the incident or immaterial in premium adjustment. 

The OP states that decorations were added by their son so no hope of claiming that it was inadvertent  and so it would come down to if 1) it is reckless not to realise adding stickers, sign writing, badges etc counts as a modification or 2) if it was reckless not to realise there were modifications to the car when they bought it.

Whilst you may argue that stickers etc are harmless, and that could be true if its just a cartoon character or such, others stick "Turbo" stickers on the back etc which can change the risk profile if a potential thief could mistake it for a higher value vehicle. 

I think you've quoted the wrong person here.
You're responding against things i never said or implied. 

Technically I quoted the two of you, just the system compresses the first sub-quote. 

My quote of you said that if the insurer had been told and they'd have declined to quote then they can void the policy... I was expanding on that saying that if they can show the non-disclosure was intentional or reckless then they can void the policy as well even if they would have insured the risk had the details been disclosed. 

jack_tyler

AdrianC said:

jack_tyler said:

Well if that is the case, my son had no idea of this. Obviously he looked under the bonnet before he bought the car, and it was how it looks in the photo, only a lot dirtier.

So that's not necessarily the underbonnet of HIS ACTUAL CAR?

That his the engine bay of my sons actual car, and this is the photo he sent in to the insurers

Retrogamer

jack_tyler said:

AdrianC said:

jack_tyler said:

Well if that is the case, my son had no idea of this. Obviously he looked under the bonnet before he bought the car, and it was how it looks in the photo, only a lot dirtier.

So that's not necessarily the underbonnet of HIS ACTUAL CAR?

That his the engine bay of my sons actual car, and this is the photo he sent in to the insurers

Is there any update on this yet? I think the "engineer" may have be wrong for the most part. 

AdrianC

New thread...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6294865/update-on-car-accident